Monday, November 19, 2012

This new series will reach back into the archives and pull up a humorous caption from an old Just for Laughs. I may recolor the original photo or stick an extra item or two in the picture, just for the fun of it. I will give credit to the humorist and the date of the original post. And FYI, you can still post comments on any JFL in CC you want. I'm not following any set order - these will be random, like the electrical impulses in my brain.

Geraldo Rivera's not so great grandfather was beaming with pride after discovering what he had thought to be more of Calvin's hidden stash of Michael Servetus' book "On the Errors of the Trinity."However, after opening the capsule live in front of the local media everyone soon discovered that he was actually in possession of Calvin's long lost septic tank.

(Thanks to Mike Anderson for this bit of humor from September 23, 2009)

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century American Christian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin, for these men-who were valiant for the truth-did not hesitate to call people names...

Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem never to have gotten past Matthew 7. That’s too bad, for they should proceed to read Matthew 23. In that chapter alone, Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names 16 times. The names are “hypocrites” (7 times), “son of Hell” (once),”blind guides” (twice), “fools and blind” (3 times), “whited sepulchers (once), “serpents” (once), and “offspring of vipers” (once). Since Christ was without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that accurate name-calling is a virtue.

But Christ is not the only example. John, who some professed Christians love to quote because they misunderstand and misrepresent what he says about love, calls certain persons known to his readers “liars” and “antichrists.” Those sensitive souls who flinch when they read chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession identifying the pope as Antichrist should read 1 John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about someone far off in Rome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.

Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians corrected those at Corinth who denied the resurrection. In chapter 15, verse 36, he refers to one objector as a fool. And can we not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 that Madelyn O’Hair, for example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul refers to “hypocritical liars” and in 5:13 he writes of “gossips and busybodies.” Those who object to name-calling must object to the practice of Jesus, Paul, and John, among many others.

The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has already asked, is, what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:”Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but whoever shall say, Fool, shall be liable to the fire of Hell.” Does not this verse, just as Matthew 7:1 does with judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do with swearing, prohibit all name-calling? The answer, equally obvious, is no. Such an interpretation would create irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. Just as Matthew 7:1 does not prohibit accurate judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do not prohibit legitimate swearing, neither does Matthew 5:22 prohibit accurate name-calling. It is not name-calling per se that is proscribed, but inaccurate name-calling. Jesus, John, and Paul used names accurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth.

Name-calling, accurately done, is not only not a sin, it is a virtue. It is identifying a person for what he is, and this cannot be done except by doing it. Anyone who studies the examples quoted here or any of the many other examples in the Bible will find that the name is used in conjunction with stated reasons for using it. The reasons constitute an argument, and the name is a conclusion. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists and liars. Those who deny the resurrection are fools, and so on. The reluctance to call names is a type of reluctance to draw valid conclusions from the evidence; it is an attempt to “curb logic,” to use the neo-orthodox phrase. As such, it is but another example of the anti rationalism of our age.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

This ad was sent to our office in Kuwait by Charles Kingsley, editor of the London Lead Story. He found these posters in the London Underground while traveling to Paddington. Your $7,000 is on it's way.

Friday, November 9, 2012

When you see a display of "Most Banned Books" at a bookstore or on line - ask them why they didn't include the Holy Bible. It is not only the best selling book of all time - it is also the most banned.

Recent Comments

The TULIP Gallery

Google+ Followers

A Little Info

A Testimony to God's Saving Grace

My B.C. years were pocked with sin and grief.I did all I could to fulfill my carnal ambitions. Thinking I would always earn a living as a musician, I dropped out of high school to devote myself to sex, drugs and rock n' roll. Getting high was my top priority. I was jailed eventually, hospitalized, and committed to a mental institution because of my suicidal inclinations. When I was released, I continued pursuing the same activities. I did all I could to escape reality. I was running from myself...running from my past...and without knowing it at the time, running straight into the hands of God! I now realize the Lord was setting up all the roadblocks, detours, and dead-ends in my life, leading me through a seemingly hopeless maze into a direct confrontation with His Son, Jesus Christ! Hebrews 1:14 declares that God sends His angels to render service to "those who will inherit salvation." He was surely doing that in my tangled life. One night, while alone in my room, I could run no longer. I reached out to the Lord and cried in desperation for Him to save me from a life misspent. He heard my plea and miraculously and instantly transformed me. I will never be the same.

Get on board the Presup Steampunk train!

Badge of Honor

A Salute to You!

Top Commentators

By Thy Grace

Search This Blog

Follow by Email

Subscribe To

A Word from the Romans 9 Grenade about Calvinistic Cartoons:

Corky Velveeta said...

It seems to me a contradiction in terms to say, as some have, that satire need have no moral lesson or didactic purpose, for the essence of satire is aggression or criticism, and criticism has always implied a systematic measure of good and bad. An object is criticized because it falls short of some standard which the critic desires that it should reach. Inseparable from any definition of satire is its corrective purpose, expressed through a critical mode which ridicules or otherwise attacks those conditions needing reformation in the opinion of the satirist. I believe there is no satire without this corrective purpose.

Accordingly, the best definitions of satire should be formulated from a combination of its corrective intent and its literary method of execution. A reasonable definition of satire, then, is "a literary manner which blends a critical attitude with humor and wit to the end that human institutions or humanity may be improved. The true satirist is conscious of the frailty of institutions of man's devising and attempts through laughter not so much to tear them down as to inspire a remodeling"

The best satire does not seek to do harm or damage by its ridicule, unless we speak of damage to the structure of vice, but rather it seeks to create a shock of recognition and to make vice repulsive so that the vice will be expunged from the person or society under attack or from the person or society intended to benefit by the attack (regardless of who is the immediate object of attack); whenever possible this shock of recognition is to be conveyed through laughter or wit: the formula for satire is one of honey and medicine. Far from being simply destructive, satire is implicitly constructive, and the satirists themselves, whom I trust concerning such matters, often depict themselves as such constructive critics.